There is a fundamental DIFFERENCE between homosexual and heterosexual adults. I'm not saying its somehow WRONG, just DIFFERENT. I could argue that since there is little procreation, it would likely be removed from the gene pool after a few generations.

Of course there's a difference =)

As for homosexuality and genetics, I fear that, much like the study of man's impact on the climate, any studies done which either suggest or do not suggest a link to genetics and/or development in the uterus will be trashed by one side of the debate, while praised by the other side. Personally, I doubt that there is a gene which could be pointed to which would determine (either alone or in combination with other genes) sexual orientation. Rather, I think it's a result of the highly complex in utero development process that a fetus undergoes, and is likely brought about by higher levels of various hormones (or lower levels of other hormones). Thus, while not genetic per se, I am 100% of the camp that it is not a choice. The only choice we have is whether to accept it or fight against it. I obviously believe in the former.

Quote:

That in NO WAY makes it right for me to have more control over the person I love in terms of medical visits/decisions. I should pay no more taxes, nor receive any more benefits because I chose a heterosexual civil union.

The medical visitation/decision rights issue is likely the biggest tragedy that exists for homosexuals today in states that don't already offer protection equivalent to heterosexuals. This is of course all the more reason to remove the government from this process, but also, to make sure that EVERYONE (not just homosexuals, but heterosexuals as well) has a will, living will, etc., to make sure that your wishes and assets are protected regardless.

Quote:

The sanctity of the nuclear family is so screwed up by heterosexual unions at this point, maybe we should give the different group a try at it. I see so many broken homes, and the very negative effect on the children of those unions. There are way too many young boys I see in youth sports and elsewhere who would have done much better with a father figure than a psycho-drug. My son is 10, and there is no way he would have turned out as well as he has without BOTH myself and my wife. Times when I got to my rope's end she took over, and vice versa.

Best regards,
Wede

I can't argue that there are many heterosexual couples who probably would have been better off not being parents. I also must say that there are homosexual couples who would be equally bad parents. The tragedy is two-fold I believe: 1) human nature and its tendency to have to struggle to commit to monogamy (or at least, to remain interested long-term in one's partner), and 2) couples who feel compelled to have children for the wrong reasons (to appease their parents, because they're friends have kids, etc.), and as a result, are not properly engaged in parenting their children. I do believe that absent those two items above, it's entirely possibly to raise normal, well-behaved children, even if they are raised by a single-parent or same-sex couple.

All of the paragraph above is just an assumption, of course; I don't have children, nor do my partner or I foresee ourselves with children down the road.